The value of an amnesty clause and contract roll backs from our perspective

[Apollo]

I don't think he will be either, but its more because BC has shown a complete unwillingness to give up on him. 'Talent' is obviously a very subjective statement.... there is no shortage of 'talent' in the NBA. Whats important is how one can apply/use that talent. He hasn't shown to be able to use it effectively or efficiently.

They certainly do all have talent, he just happens to have more of it than the average NBA player.

Imagine this. Bargnani is not a Raptor. Who would you be willing to trade on this team for Andrea?

Depends on the team. I've always said the he needs to play with an effective, above average traditional center. You pair him next to that and a solid SF and you can best take advantage of what he does best. I've always said that team is not the Raptors but do you know what GT? He's here for at least another season so you might as well get used to it. I'm not the guy making the call, I'm the guy trying to change his view to an optimistic outlook because I know this is the hand we're dealt as fans and it's a pointless waste of time to continue on with this generic boring one sided debate. It is what it is, time to live with it for now.

For all we know Colangelo might envision Bargnani excelling next to Big Val and if that's the case Amir or Ed is more likely out. It didn't reassure me this off-season that Casey talked about every big man and forward seemingly besides Ed Davis.

[Tim W.]

It shouldn't matter if the team making the cut wishes to resign the player. The amnesty clause is designed to cut the teams a break while not at the expense of the player. Putting extra restrictions on it such as not permitting the team to resign the player is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a one time opportunity and it's limited to one player per team. If the team is over the cap then they can only use the vet minimum to re-sign the player... Or the MLE. If that player is willing to come back for the vet minimum then who cares? It's their choice, let them do it. Every team has the same opportunity to dump a contract and it's up to management to make the most out of it. If that includes bringing back the player then so be it, why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Like RapthoseLeafs and I've said, it's already a different beast from what we heard, so to assume it's going to follow the logic of the last clause when it's already moving away from it doesn't sound like a great assumption to me. Ultimately its the owners who decide if the teams should be allowed to resign the player and so I don't see why they're going to block it this time around when they've already been setting their sights on more freedom regarding the clause to begin with. What I'm interested in is how they handle player options in this clause.

Max contracts are getting clipped, the MLE is being basically cut in half, the BAE will be abolished and the length on contracts will be clipped at 3, maybe 4 years. I know you're very cynical of the business side of it be please try to at least consider the positives of a change or at least try and frame you pessimistic view within the new landscape that seems to be coming...

It was well publicized last time around that the only reason that some big names weren't ditched is because the amnesty clause was designed solely to give tax relief. This time its designed to give cap relief. Here's one such article from 2005 to give you a feel for the view back then and why. This amnesty clause is totally different and so it's only natural to take a different approach and that approach is probably the on that people though would be taken last time around before it was understood that the only relief would be to top over spenders:

Marc Stein "Houston, Finley gone; other big names staying put" ESPN.com, 2005.

As I said before, a scenario where the teams could cut a player and not have their salary count against the salary cap AND re-sign him with no penalties, only benefits a few of the better, more financially secure teams. Most of the smaller market teams would HATE this, because it helps the teams that need the least help. Let's face it, if Boston cut just about any of their players, they'd probably just re-sign for the minimum if they could. Boston is a "have" team and a contender. Players want to go there.

The same would not be said of many of the other teams.

I just can't see it going over very well with the majority of the teams.

[RapthoseLeafs]

That doesn't make sense. Just because the original teams CAN re-sign players they cut, doesn't mean those players won't become free agents and have the ability to sign elsewhere, flooding the free agency market. The players would still have the option to sign with the highest bidder. All allowing players to re-sign would do would be to reward the haves even more. And quite frankly, DO teams like Orlando, Miami, Dallas and other rich teams need any more help? I can't see that going over with the rest of the owners. Not at all.

To clarify my post, when I said by "dubious means or not", I meant that a team could have a prearranged deal to release a player, and then resign him for the Vet minimum. Some teams might be reluctant to pull the plug on a player - not wishing to alienate fans - and that in turn, could affect a wealthy team's perspective on the proposed luxury tax in these CBA talks. Some teams will also have trouble agreeing to a restrictive policy that was inherent with the 2005 program. The less objections, the greater chance we see a season. Or at least a relatively decent season.

In the case of the Raptors, they could work a deal with Jose, that would be beneficial to the team, and to Jose. For Calderon, he gets an opportunity to stay longer with a team I'm assuming he'd like to remain with (while we find a top level PG - and for which Jose can segue into a mentor's role). And for Toronto, they maintain some semblance of veteran-ship - on a youthful team - while acquiring greater flexibility, and a very sweet cap scenario. And if it doesn't work, Raptors can repay Jose with a trade to a Contender.
.

Hell ... the more I think about it, the more I think this favours teams like Toronto. Raptors could see this positive scenario - relatively speaking - while richer teams who tend to be over the cap, or have minimal room to maneuver, will more or less see only luxury tax relief. For a few teams that we talked about, it may bring more - effectively bolstering the chance of this program becoming reality.

As to whether a smaller market team would agree to this, my perspective was partly based on the allegedly enhanced luxury tax system - a system which would favour the cheaper teams, to the disadvantage of higher spending teams - all relative to the current CBA's set-up. Getting the richer teams on board for an enhanced luxury tax could be difficult. This might ease the pain.
.

In the end, this is like what Apollo said - a ONE TIME deal. And it could be a WIN WIN situation for many teams. And for some players - they'll actually make more. Which considering the across the board proposed reductions in pay, this scenario might ease that pain - and contribute to actually getting this CBA done.
.

[Tim W.]

I think it might benefit the Raptors, as well as a few other teams. This I agree with. As I said, the haves. Toronto, for all their inability to put a winning team on the floor, is a have. They are profitable and have a lot of money at their disposal. The problem is that it won't benefit the majority of teams, who don't have a lot of money, wouldn't be able to attract back the player, or any other player, for little money, and probably don't want to see teams that are better than them get an advantage. WHat you have to realize is that if it benefit some teams, there are teams that it won't benefit, and those teams will, by comparison, be hurt by it.

[GarbageTime]

Depends on the team. I've always said the he needs to play with an effective, above average traditional center. You pair him next to that and a solid SF and you can best take advantage of what he does best. I've always said that team is not the Raptors but do you know what GT? He's here for at least another season so you might as well get used to it. I'm not the guy making the call, I'm the guy trying to change his view to an optimistic outlook because I know this is the hand we're dealt as fans and it's a pointless waste of time to continue on with this generic boring one sided debate. It is what it is, time to live with it for now.

For all we know Colangelo might envision Bargnani excelling next to Big Val and if that's the case Amir or Ed is more likely out. It didn't reassure me this off-season that Casey talked about every big man and forward seemingly besides Ed Davis.

But who on this team currently, or future assets, would you be willing to give up for Bargnani? If we are going to talk about him having value... whats that value? If we aren't willing to give up anything from this team worth mentioning, why would we expect another team to?

As for getting used to it... its been half a decade of it. I don't see why I should get used to it now. I'll get used to him being productive and active. I won't get used to him taking 18+ft jumpers and not rebounding. I'm not sure why anyone would want the fan base to.

[Tim W.]

But who on this team currently, or future assets, would you be willing to give up for Bargnani? If we are going to talk about him having value... whats that value? If we aren't willing to give up anything from this team worth mentioning, why would we expect another team to?

As for getting used to it... its been half a decade of it. I don't see why I should get used to it now. I'll get used to him being productive and active. I won't get used to him taking 18+ft jumpers and not rebounding. I'm not sure why anyone would want the fan base to.

The problem is that it's become obvious that he doesn't really have a place on the Raptors. And Raptor fans have grown tired of him. It doesn't mean other teams might not value him or see a place for him on their team. I wouldn't give up much for Jamal Crawford or Nick Young or Monta Ellis, but I'll bet they have some value around the league. EVeryone values players differently.

[GarbageTime]

I wouldn't give up much for Jamal Crawford or Nick Young or Monta Ellis, but I'll bet they have some value around the league. EVeryone values players differently.

"some" value is significantly different than

"market value is higher than his Raptors fan value. He's an asset, one of the biggest on the team"

and even then, what is that "some value"? Is it a late first round draft pick and another bad contract? Is that more valuable than having the 10+ mil a year in cap space?

In the list linked to above it was almost unanimous that Bargnani wasn't "the right fit" for each fan's team. They also consistently talk about how "bad" his contract is.

making a play for Bargnani if Toronto were essentially giving him away and West/Landry both were to leave. Because of his long term salary and the uncertainty about the new CBA, however, I think the Hornets would explore every other avenue first. The best trade the Hornets can offer?Their TPE and perhaps a future first round pick and/or Quincy Pondexter for Bargnani.

that is arguably one of the better offers made, from a Hornets fan.... and that is only IF both existing PFs decide to leave. Pretty much its "we'll take him off your hands if we have a giant hole to fill and think about giving you a guy with a cool name"

Constructing a package around Blatche for Bargnani? Again, something highly unlikely. As much of a proponent I am of the Wizards “adding” by “subtracting” Blatche, I certainly don’t think they should do it for someone with a MUCH worse contact who is also fairly worse at defense.Sorry

AB vs AB....

I don’t think Bargnani is a player that fits what the Lakers want to do on either side of the ball........if the Lakers were to make a deal for him, I think they’d be willing to give up some combination of Artest, Blake, and Walton to get it done. ........ To me, he’d be a much better fit on a team like Orlando where he compliments Howard on both sides of the floor or when paired with a penetrating PG (like Rose or John Wall)

we saw what the Wizards fan said, how about Orlando?:

Bargnani is not the type of difference-maker that Orlando needs and is, therefore, of little value to their team.

although I bet they'd move Hedo or Gilbert for him

While all of us here agree that Bargnani is a great offensive weapon, we really don’t see him as a great fit for the Sixers........we would send you Brand, Speights and Brackins for AB, Calderon and Derozen. But I am not sure why the Raps would swing that deal.

anything you guys like here?

I don’t think the Pistons would give up much. Another player who doesn’t rebound or defend is the last thing they need, especially at his contract. I’d think the Pistons would trade some combination of Richard Hamilton, Charlie Villanueva, Jason Maxiell and maybe Ben Gordon.

...... great job Dumars.

any deal would have to start with Frye but I don’t something like that would do much for Toronto (why get an inferior version of Bargs) or Phoenix (why get a more expensive version of Frye when you have so many other needs)

so between Barg's two most comparable peers (Blatche and Frye), fans of both teams have said they have better value.

The only person who said the team would probably be interested:

I would say the team would be extremely open minded in listening to Toronto and their request for Bargnani. The obvious candidates that the Bobcats would try to move are Stephen Jackson, Boris Diaw and DeSagna Diop because of the huge contracts they carry.......... The Bobcats do have two first round picks this year (9 and 19) and I believe they would be interested in moving the 19th pick.

(there was also mention of DJ Augustine in there)

So again a bad contract + a late pick.... maybe DJ Augustine?


Unless I missed one, no one else even bothered to offer their junk for him.

Again this doesn't mean Bargnani won't be traded, and clearly these guys are fans and not GMs... but we can see a consistent stream in here of "Thanks but no thanks. He can't defend or rebound and his contract is too big. If we do offer you something its our own bad contracts". I really don't buy that fans of other teams value Andrea much differently than Raps fans do. Even then most teams are going to need to make contracts work so the Raps will need to take $ back anyways for him.

As I say once a month with Bargnani, I hope I'm wrong. I hope BC does want to move him, values him fairly and other teams are open to dealing for him. Realisticly I see him being a drain on this team for 3 more years and then his expiring contract being dumped.

I see no point in, if he can't be moved by the time amnesty needs to be used, not taking advantage of a situation where his contract is off the books and creating more playing time for Amir and Ed. It is not worth the risk not to.

[jimmie]

You're still talking about fan perception. Not GM perception. There's a dramatic difference. Not too many fans would trade for an expiring contract of a crappy player, either, because fans generally want to see dramatic and exciting moves. Coincidentally, probably why a lot of people liked the move to get O'Neal, or the move to get Turk.

GMs consider players as assets. Fans consider them with a lot more emotional baggage. As an asset, Bargnani likely has considerable value around the league, and I doubt it would be difficult to move him, for varying returns depending on the suitor.

Edit: I understand the frustrations with AB, but the constant talk of moving him for the primary reason that he's taking PT away from Ed Davis and Amir Johnson is just as shady as thinking AB will suddenly turn into Dirk Nowitzki under Casey's tutelage. Amir is what he is -- a great, great backup energy guy at the 4/5. He's not a guy who plays 40 minutes for a playoff team. And Ed Davis is still -- promising defensive work in year 1 aside -- very much an unknown. I'm not saying I'd give up on him quickly, but slotting him in right now as a key piece of this team long-term is naive.

[GarbageTime]

You're still talking about fan perception. Not GM perception. There's a dramatic difference. Not too many fans would trade for an expiring contract of a crappy player, either, because fans generally want to see dramatic and exciting moves. Coincidentally, probably why a lot of people liked the move to get O'Neal, or the move to get Turk.

GMs consider players as assets. Fans consider them with a lot more emotional baggage. As an asset, Bargnani likely has considerable value around the league, and I doubt it would be difficult to move him, for varying returns depending on the suitor.

But who here can speak as or for a GM? If I as a fan can't say "I don't think player X has value", then someone else can't reasonably say "I think player X has value".

I'd also say that a lot of people view players as assets to. But assets aren't guaranteed to hold their value or be profitable.

(I'd also mention there were alot of people who hated the move to get O'neal and Turk)

[jimmie]

Nobody here can speak as a GM. So I guess this is what we're left with -- opinion. Ugh, really... ;-)

I guess I just give the 'AB has value' opinion a little more weight than those I see as more emotionally based (ie. "I've been frustrated by watching AB struggle year after year and be given excuses; I know he's not going to improve and I just want him gone..."). I've seen enough really, really bad contracts moved for decent return to know that there's almost always a buyer, someone who thinks they can derive additional value where the previous franchise could not.

But in the end, it's all opinion. We don't know what Colangelo really thinks of AB (or of AJ and ED, for that matter) and we certainly have no idea what other GMs across the league think of Toronto's assets. We can guess, but we can't know.

[Soft Euro]

Even though I don't hold a lot of value to the opinions of these bloggers (by which I mean, not more than my own opinions), I do think you left out some parts of the quotes.

that is arguably one of the better offers made, from a Hornets fan.... and that is only IF both existing PFs decide to leave. Pretty much its "we'll take him off your hands if we have a giant hole to fill and think about giving you a guy with a cool name"

After your quote (see the post) the blogger follows with:

At that point, I would assume Colangelo would laugh and hang up the phone, but that is honestly the best the Hornets could do.

which means he values Bargnani more than the offer they could make. He also said:

Bargnani would not be a horrible fit with Emeka Okafor since he has range that stretches beyond the three point line and at least has the general size that Okafor lacks to make teams shoot over him on the defensive end.

Where you end your Lakers quote:

However, that’s not a very attractive package for the Raptors and if I were in their shoes I’d laugh at a proposal like that.

so between Barg's two most comparable peers (Blatche and Frye), fans of both teams have said they have better value.

The Sun's man clearly says that Barngani is better than Frye, but that the Suns have many other needs more important than replacing Frye with Bargnani.

No offense, but it looks a bit like selective quoting.

I see no point in, if he can't be moved by the time amnesty needs to be used, not taking advantage of a situation where his contract is off the books and creating more playing time for Amir and Ed. It is not worth the risk not to.

And this is where you differ at least from me in the way you view Bargnani. If I'm right you think along the lines of the win-share theories and see Bargnani as losing us games. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't hold that theory in very high regard, considering the weird outcomes it gives (Ryan Anderson being more valuable than the finals mvp for one). I agree with most top 100 and other lists that have been published this summer that Bargnani is in the low end of the top 100 players in the league. Those lists also show something: even though Bargnani is, as one of these writers wrote "Like Dirk Nowitzki if Dirk wouldn't be any good," he is still in the upper half of the league and no, most teams aren't jumping at the chance to get a nr 80-100 player in the league regardless of whom it is and certainly not someone who doesn't fit everywhere (like I'd imagine Amir would). But lack of a bidding war is different from not having trading value.

[ezz_bee]

I did an in-depth analysis on bargs about half-way through the season last year. I compared his production (stats and advanced stats) versus other PF/C in the league on similar contracts. At that time what I found was that bargs' production was average or slightly below average compared to his salary. Since he makes 1 mil more each year (this year and the three following) I argued that his production needs to improve or his value WILL decline. I thought that if you were going to trade him the best time was at the trade deadline of last year.

I think you can still trade bargs, however, his value has to be seen as declining and as such the longer you hang onto him the less you will get. I wouldn't say that dropping him is addition by subtraction so I wouldn't entertain the idea of using the amnesty on him. even if all get out of him is a high draft pick, that's still better than getting NOTHING and PAYING HIM his entire contract.

I don't think that bargs will improve his production to make his contact more valuable but if you use him in a trade his declining value should get you something, even if that something isn't really very good. I also think that one year with a forward rotation of Amir/Davis/Bargs/+1 is a serviceable front court since we aren't contending or looking to contend this season (if there is one). If we didn't have to pay his salary if we cut him then I would certainly consider it BUT paying him 33-41 million just to go away seems like too high a price.

As an example Metta World Peace + Steve Blake for bargs would work, and they only have 2 years left after this season as compared to bargs' 3. Steve Blake can play our Jose role of backup PG and vet leadership at 60% off. Metta WP would be an upgrade at the 3 for the next two years. IF Metta's crazyiness makes you afraid of the deal I think he is easier to unload (2 yrs @ 8 mil). Whether you think this is a good trade or not, I think it's still better than paying out the entirety of Barg's contract which is at LEAST 33 million.

Does bargs have a bad contract? The perception seems to be yes, and even if it may not be true right now, it probably will be true by the end of next season (if we have one) however, if we cut him with the amnesty, we still have to pay him and we are even thinner in our front court and would have to add least 1 more if not two more players, and pay them as well. I just don't see any argument where cutting bargs is the best option available.

[GarbageTime]

Soft Euro the point was fans don't put much value in Bargnani or see him as a good fit. If they did, they'd have no issue offering up a fake trade for him.

Does BC value him as higher?.... I've said many, many times I think he does. Which will, I imagine, always be an issue.

which means he values Bargnani more than the offer they could make

no he COULD make a much better offer if he wanted. This is just theoretical evaluating. But they do not. Why? Because they value the players they have more than Bargnani.

The Sun's man clearly says that Barngani is better than Frye,

he also clearly states Frye is better value than Bargnani. Which is EXACTLY what I stated.

There was no selective quoting... I left the link up there for people to read. I also didn't mention fans like Atlanta who said

I desperately hope the Hawks would not trade for Andrea Bargnani.

You can read into it whatever you like, but "Bargnani is not a good fit" and "he has a bad contract" is the most common statements there are.

If I'm right you think along the lines of the win-share theories and see Bargnani as losing us games. Please correct me if I'm wrong here

Not exactly. I think at the rate he is played, being used and being payed he does. Do I think if we remove Bargnani the team will win games? No.. and if they do it will be marginal at best. But do I think if this team trades Bargnani and starts to play other guys will this team win more games in the future? I sure do.

As far as I'm concerned this team is wasting their time and resources. IF amnesty did come to pass this would be a great opportunity to address that.

But lack of a bidding war is different from not having trading value

No where did I say he has no trade value. But I don't think he has the trade value that will bring in a peice greater than the cap space he makes available + playing time he opens up for Ed and Amir. I already stated you try to trade him first, and if nothing is available by the amnesty due date you use it.

[Tim W.]

None of us obviously have any idea what Bargnani can fetch in a trade. It's all speculation. But the one thing we do know is that it's not the fans that make the trades. What the fans think has no bearing on Bargnani's value. He's a 25 year old 7 footer who can score 20 ppg from inside and out. I think it's safe to say that at least one GM is going to see value in that. Unless we actually get on the phone and pretend to be Colangelo with other GMs, I don't see us knowing what that value is.

[mcHAPPY]

None of us obviously have any idea what Bargnani can fetch in a trade. It's all speculation. But the one thing we do know is that it's not the fans that make the trades. What the fans think has no bearing on Bargnani's value. He's a 25 year old 7 footer who can score 20 ppg from inside and out. I think it's safe to say that at least one GM is going to see value in that. Unless we actually get on the phone and pretend to be Colangelo with other GMs, I don't see us knowing what that value is.

Very, very true.

Just look at some of the trades proposed in our own forum (me included) - they are ridiculous.

With that said, I do think Raptor fans (and all home fans) tend to overvalue their own players. Bargnani would be the exception with Raps fans, I think many undervalue him.